Fury is both the name of the movie and an M4 Sherman tank that’s home to a dysfunctional family of US Army soldiers. To set the stage, it’s April of 1945 – the last month of the War in Europe — and Hitler’s armies have been shattered on the Western front. The Nazis have been reduced to using children and women to defend their murderous regime. The Third Reich is being (literally) crushed under the treads of American tanks. Resistance, especially from the SS and the Hitler Youth, is fanatical as the Nazis defend their own land. And here’s the first of several spoilers: the Allies win! . . .
Brad Pitt is Sgt. Don Collier, Fury’s commander. His nom de guerre is Wardaddy, and he’s very much the stern, authoritative father figure of his crew. Think “Sergeant Stryker” and you’re in the ballpark, except Stryker had a far superior haircut.
Wardaddy eventually leads Fury through a multi-tank battle with a German Tiger tank, and later to a final showdown at a crossroads that, like every crossroads in every war movie ever made, simply must be held at all costs. But first, there’s time for a little wartime hanky panky with a German auntie and her comely niece, played by Alicia von Rittberg. It’s fortunate that every German fraulein didn’t look like Alicia, or the Allied drive through Germany might have stalled somewhere west of Cologne.
The mood of Fury, and the principal photography, is brooding and somber from start to finish. War is hell, a life at war is nasty, brutish and short and above all, the lighting sucks . . . all of which is true. War is also scary, and director David Ayer does his best to make the audience sense that fear by building tension in the claustrophobic tank. Ayer succeeds so well that when the visceral, powerful battle scenes finally arrive, they provide an almost cathartic relief. Prostate sufferers take note – “go” before the fighting starts, because you won’t want to leave.
The fighting scenes are intimate, brutal, extremely violent and extraordinarily exciting. In the style of “Saving Private Ryan,” there are no compromises in Fury. The gory details are just that, gory. A nation attuned to “The Walking Dead,” with its splattering brains, decapitations and decomposing corpses, will not be disappointed in Fury. Hey, this is a war movie, not “Jersey Boys.” There’s gonna be blood.
Fury is not Patton. Patton was a dazzlingly entertaining movie, but consistent with its main character, it was jingoistic and glorified war. The battle scenes were relatively sterile, with few heads popping off or dangling limbs. There’s no such glorification or sanitization to be seen in Fury.
Still, Fury is no “Thin Red Line.” There’s no insanity here among the US soldiers. Nobody is fighting for promotion or because they were unfulfilled shoe salesmen before the outbreak of hostilities. The crew of the tank knows why it’s fighting and who it’s fighting for. The men are fighting for each other. They are fighting to win, whatever that entails. They are fighting to live. Okay, maybe they’re also fighting for an Oscar nomination, but that’s not the point.
Unlike “Red Line” or “Letters from Iwo Jima,” Fury shows no sympathy to the enemy soldaten. Fury cares very little for the Heer – they are fighting for evil — and even less for the hateful SS, who are evil incarnate. “They’re the ones who started this war,” says one of the Fury crew about the SS. Regular German soldiers can be spared if they stop fighting, otherwise they will get snuffed by the truckload and dumped into mass graves. The SS, however, must be killed, preferably one at a time, for the evil they’ve done, whether they continue to fight or not.
Pitt, who has a tendency to underact everything, manages to stop trying to channel his inner Gregory Peck just this once. In almost every Pitt film, I end up thinking “for god’s sake, man, yell or something!” Here, Pitt shows some anger, and he actually raises his voice once or twice. This is Pitt’s second film foray into the killing Nazi business, and his best. And when he takes off his shirt, Wardaddy is totally buffed, proving that no matter how busy you are killing Nazis, there’s always time for a brisk workout.
Pitt dominates this film. That’s really saying something because the rest of the cast is so good. Watching Shia LaBeouf’s outstanding performance might make people forget “Transformers.” Okay, that would be impossible, but he’s still terrific.
Jon Bernthal (who was bumped off by Rick Grimes in “The Walking Dead,” only to return as a hillbilly halfass with a bad attitude in Fury) Michael Peña (a Mexican-American cast against type as, of all things, a Mexican-American) and Logan Lerman as Norman are exceptional. The quality of acting runs very deep in Fury, right down to a brief supporting role by Scott Eastwood. Hey, isn’t his dad an actor or something?
Also exceptional was the director’s technical accuracy. The weaponry is pretty much what soldiers would have used on the ETO battlefield in 1945. There are lots of M1 Garands and Browning M1918A2s, as expected. Several M1 Carbines can be seen, all of which lacked the bayonet lug that eventually became a permanent part of the little carbine. Because everybody with a tiny little rifle wants to stick a tiny little knife on the end.
Fury likewise is fitted out with the correct complement of machine guns, including .30 caliber Browning M1919A4s and a .50 caliber Browning M2HB, and the “new” 76mm cannon with the muzzle brake, which was a big improvement over the original naked 75mm.
The tankers are also seen using a Colt M1911A1, an M1A1 Thompson and couple of M3A1 Grease Guns which they deploy when they leave the close confines of Fury to snag some women, grab a bite to eat or take a dump. The latter is about the only human function not depicted in this film, although it is mentioned.
The Germans carry their Mauser K98ks, MP40s, Sturmgewehr 44s and Hitler’s Buzz Saw, the devilish MG 42. They also do serious damage with their Panzerfausts. The Tiger tank featured in the film is real, and might be the last functional Tiger 1 left in the world unless Paul Allen owns one.
The most interesting firearm is the M1917 revolver carried by Wardaddy in his shoulder holster. It’s probably a Smith & Wesson rather than the Colt version, and sports handsome custom grips. The M1917 was chambered in .45ACP and loaded with or without half-moon clips. Those revolvers were phased out after WWI in favor of the M1911, but could still be found doing duty during WW2. Interesting, although it was a double action revolver, Wardaddy fired his M1917 exclusively single action, and every German he shot with it was instantly vaporized into a fine red mist. So what they say about the .45ACP must be true.
Fury opened on October 17 to odd reviews. Viewers overwhelming like it, most critics think it’s a powerful war movie, but a very few critics, mostly skinny jeans wearing metrosexuals and other low-T types, think the movie is yucky and gross and yearn for a remake of “The Notebook.”
WARNING: SPOILERS
Fury steals many tropes from “Saving Private Ryan,” and then turns some of them upside down. It’s not much of a stretch to think that somebody connected with Fury watched “Ryan” on Netflix and then thought, “Gee, what a great idea for a movie!”
In “Ryan,” a young, untrained soldier named Upham is assigned to the mission. After Tom Hanks’ squad is ambushed and its medic killed, a German bushwacker tries to surrender. Upham persuades the squad to let the German go instead of killing him on the spot. Big mistake. The same German subsequently attacks the squad. Lesson learned — after the German surrenders again, Upham executes his ass.
Fury’s young, untrained soldier is named Norman, which on the manly name scale is one step up from Bruce. Or Ralph. On his first mission with Wardaddy, Norman fails to shoot a young German soldier. Big mistake. The German ambushes and blows up the lead American tank and kills the tankers aboard. The German is then gunned down by Fury’s crew, who heap abuse on Norman for being such a pansy. Shortly thereafter, Wardaddy forces Norman to man up and execute a pleading German soldier for the sin of wearing a GI coat. At the end of the movie, the tables are turned as Norman is discovered hiding by a young German soldier. He silently pleads with the young SS dude, and the German does not reveal Norman to his SS pals. Norman is spared. Lesson learned – but it’s not Upham’s lesson.
There’s more. Tom Hanks’ Captain Miller has an interesting backstory (school teacher), as does most of his squad; Wardaddy has no backstory and there’s little talk about what any of the Fury crew did before the war. In fact, they mostly use their “war names” – Wardaddy, Bible, Coon-Ass and Gordo. Norman becomes Machine. They have no other identity.
At the end of “Ryan,” the good guys defend against bad guys in a tank; in Fury, the bad guys attack against the good guys in the tank. In “Ryan,” the team is ordered on a mission that most of them think is suicidal, risking their own lives to pull one guy off the line. In Fury, the team willingly (if reluctantly) volunteers for a mission that most of them think is suicidal, risking their own lives to hold the crossroads against an SS battalion to save the GIs behind them. Pitt looks great with his shirt off. I wouldn’t want to see Tom Hanks with his shirt off.
See what I mean? The list of contradictions goes on. In some ways, Fury and “Ryan” are polar opposites, or maybe mirror images.
The most shocking thing about Fury – balls-to-bone a Hollywood war movie if there ever was one – is an abundance of Christian symbolism. This symbolism isn’t accidental, like Coppola’s oranges in “The Godfather.” This is intentional. Frankly, this is the most religious movie since “Going My Way,” with the possible exception of “Passion of the Christ.”
The final, mind-blowing scene features an eerie and revealing overhead shot of the crossroads, littered with dozens of dead bodies surrounding what appears for all intents and purposes to be a large crucifix spanning the screen. I was speechless. Then I remembered that the last scene in “Ryan” also featured a crucifix. A lot of them in fact. And a few Stars of David, too. You tend to find such things in Army cemeteries.
Here’s the long and short of it: Fury is probably the best Hollywood WW2 movie since “Saving Private Ryan.” It has courage. It has heart. It is intentionally upsetting. It has unrelenting battle scenes that will have you on the edge of your seat and more than slightly repulsed at the carnage. It has an underlying message of resistance to evil, devotion to faith and ethics that viewers can accept or ignore. The film works as Grand Guignol just as well as it works as a religious statement.
Fury left me deeply moved and more admiring than ever of the Greatest Generation. More than anything, it left me shaking my head about the nation we have become, and how we became such a pale imitation of what we once were.
SPECIFICATIONS:
Model: Fury
Caliber: .50BMG and 76MM AP
Length: 134 minutes
Action: The battle scenes are literally incendiary
Finish: Somber
Price: $68 million and worth every penny
RATINGS (out of five bullets):
Style * * * * *
The battle scenes were graphic and not for the faint of heart. For once, a Hollywood director actually gets the weaponry right. His history is a bit off, though. For example, despite what the movie claims, Hitler did not declare “total war” in 1945. It was declared by Goebbels in 1943 at his infamous Sportpalast speech. Yes, that’s a nitpick. The battle tactics used against the Tiger were not appropriate for an up-gunned M4 but entirely appropriate for the weaker 75mm version. The white horse that opens and closes this film is classic symbolism. Even the final credits are symbolic.
Reliability * * * *
Don’t let the initial pace faze you. Once Fury gets rolling, it’s hard to stop it. Well, it’s a tank, after all. This is very much an actors’ movie, and the cast delivers one top performance after another. It’s hard not to care about the characters, even Jon Bernthal who starts out as a dick and then drops his pretense and shows his human side. The ending is predictable, but only because it’s the only ending that would make any sense. The dialog won’t win any awards.
OVERALL RATING * * * * 1/2
Fury stands among the best American WW2 movies of this generation, and certainly the best since “Saving Private Ryan.” Anyone who liked “Ryan” will probably like this film too.
I like movies.
By the by I heard that Mr Pitt is “people of the Gun.”
He is, and he’s a friendly guy as well.
He is, but like all whores, that sentiment is only a popularity contest. When the winds change, he’ll be the 1st in line calling for NRA members to be jailed.
Do not trust these people.
You’re silly!
You’re not paying attention.
I like Brad’s acting most of the time, but let us be honest: His wife believes she is queen of the United Nations and that is a scary thing.
Umm, you know that he built his (now) wife a shooting range on their property in France, no? And that he has more than a couple of full auto collectors arms there? And that he got his granddaddy’s shotgun when he was four? Try again, Pancho.
And he’s an Okie.
France? Well la de Fing Da.
An Okie only by birth. Was a Misery resident from a very young age till he split late 80s if memory serves.
I only know him from his days in Kickapoo’s S&D team, and I have no idea whether his team or my team won. If I ever bother to dig up the flows of those rounds, I might figure it out. ‘Natch all I remember most was that he interesting to speak with (despite being the home turf competitor) and was serious competition for the favors of the tasty ladies (they’re in forensics, few and far between, but they are crazy smart and crazy crazy…), which was most the fun of HS roadtrips – everybody gets some action and they never call you because you live 200 miles away and they did it all for the nookie as well…
He likes firearms. Very much did in HS, we talked for maybe an hour about things that go boom at their tournament waaayyy back in the day.
Pitt has claimed to be a gun guy on more than one occasion. In fact, I couldn’t help but wonder if the handsome M1917 that he toted in Fury came from his personal collection.
Now _that_ would be cool…
To see the joy on the face of Angelina and Brad’s kids….shopping in LA…should cheer the doubters:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2082984/Angelina-Jolies-boys-shooting-skills-toy-guns.html
In a recent interview he stated that he owned his first gun since Kindergarten. He said “there is a rite of passage where I grew up of inheriting your ancestors’ weapons. The positive is that my father instilled in me a profound and deep respect for the weapon” .
I liked the fact that he used the word “weapon” the “gun” reference was made by the reporter.
And this is the best Ralph review ever. I’ll see it eventually. Sounds great.
Just saw it, outstanding movie.
Great review, sir! You were categorically more informative than my friend at work who told me that I had to see this movie because, and I quote: “It has tons of guns and is really gory.”
I have, for the record, passed a full psychological evaluation. In 2001.
Anyways, I really look forward to seeing this movie.
I dunno man. 13 years is a long time. Especially if you’ve spent the majority of that time in socal. Just saying. 🙂
Wasn’t there a saying that you need to send five Shermans to fight one Tiger 1 and expect four not to return?
That was the Panther tank. A platoon of the original Sherman M4s with the short 75 mm gun would lose 4 of the 5 versus a Panther. The Tiger I was even worse for Allied tankers. Go look up the Battle of Villers Bocage for what a single well handled Tiger I could do.
In response to your Villers Bocage reference, I’ll just leave this right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann
Wittman is not “a well handled Tiger”. That’s just straight up “impossible mode”.
I hitchhiker from Bayeaux to Villers-Bocage and walked the route Wittmann took in his Tiger. While most of the town is modern you can see where they have patched up some of the building that weren’t totally destroyed.
Now youre making me want to play some Company of Heroes!!
The only place the 75mm could pen a Tiger’s armor was in it’s ass, so they sent the m4 in groups of 4 so that when the enemy was located, usually by the first Sherman being destroyed, they could attempt to circle the Tiger. Typically, due to the Tiger’s poor turret turn rate, at least one could get behind and disable it before the whole unit was destroyed. Once the 76, engine upgrades, and HVSS suspension came about, on decent ground, an M4E8 was faster than a Tiger’s turret turn rate and could pen it from the side.
Or in some cases from the front if they had a couple rounds of HVAP tucked away for “Emergencies”.
Note that, tactically the Tiger I is as fast as the early M4 Sherman due to its wide tracks, which gave the Tiger a lower ground pressure than a Sherman. Tigers could go places that would bog a Sherman.
Speeds were comparable, 28 mph for a Sherman (M4 or M4A1) vs 24 mph for the Tiger, but the Tiger was a resource hog and therefore slower operationally.
However, personally, if given the choice of WW2 Era tanks to go to war in, I’d put my lilly white butt in a Tiger I. 😉
Try loadiing Tigers into Liberty Ships.
Like most German mechanical equipment of WWII mediocre design and relatively poor performance. Fuel usage of the Tiger was extraordinary high.
Like most anything German for the last 100+ years, everything they built for WWII was supremely over-engineered, and even more over-built. Which drained precious resources and was bringing one Rolex to a place where you needed 5 disposable Timexes.
Great review. I saw the movie Saturday.
A book I read a few years back, by a guy who was in a tank-repair outfit, claimed the original low-pressure 75 mm Sherman gun was installed because some Army deep-thinkers figured the tanks would be used as artillery and had to be able to fire something like 5,000 rounds before burning out. Of course a lot of the M4 didn’t survive long enough to fire 50 rounds. The author also said Sherman crews could sometimes outfox Tiger crews by hitting them with a white-phosphorus round. The resulting smoke made them think they were on fire and could be gunned down when they bailed out.
I was surprised to learn from this book that the Sherman’s engine was an 11-cylinder air-cooled radial aircraft engine. He said engines could be swapped out in the field in an hour or so.
Finally, just for kicks, these guys mounted a 90 mm gun on a Sherman and took a shot at a dead Tiger with solid shot. The projectile went clear through.
Seems like the Death Traps book by Cooper. Dad was in Vehicle Ordnance with the 25th Armored Division and his experiences were similar to Cooper’s.
Right you are! I couldn’t remember the title or author.
Army doctrine before and well into the war was that tanks were infantry support vehicles. The low velocity 75mm was chosen for a number of reasons. The most important being the quality and quantity of its high explosive round. For busting bunkers and such. When the brits got the first shermans into action in North Africa it came off well against the older model German and Italian tanks used there.
People always overlook that about 75% of Rommels forces in NA were Italian, including their substandard tanks. Word got back to the pentagon of the superiority of the Sherman and everybody got the warm fuzzies.
Army doctrin called for lighter armored and heavier gunned tank destroyers to engage enemy tanks. But in the real world the tanks did most of the work.
So American soldiers were stuck with a thinly armored tank with an underperforming gun and a gas powered motor that also had poor storage for its ammo. slang term for a British soldier was a tommy. Germans referred to shermans as “Tommy cookers”.
The M-26 Pershing could have been deployed in the fall of 1944 if the Army decided to put it into mass production. The deciding factor was logistics. It would take 25% more shipping to move an armored division equipped with the M-26 than the M-4. The M-26 was the American Tiger I. Equal in firepower, a little weaker in the front but superior in side and rear protection. They showed up on the battlefield in February ’45 and were a smashing success.
The Brits had the best anti-tank gun. The 76.2 AAA piece that they mounted on the Sherman Firefly.
Woo Hoo, Love a good Ralphie Movie Review. Thanks bud. Looks like a good one.
The Tiger 1e is real. It’s Tiger 131 from the Bovington Museum. Fury, the tank is either an M4A3 (76) or an M4A3E8, the best of the Sherman used in WW2.
Currently there is one operational Tiger I and one operational Tiger II still in existence. There are 6 other Tiger I survivors and 10 surviving Tiger IIs.
Yes I’m a treadhead.
Awesome review Ralph.
Going to go watch it on the big screen instead of waiting for the DVD.
Thanks Ralph. You whetted my already keen appetite for this flick.
No disrespect to Brad Pitt, but comparing him (or anyone) to Sergeant Stryker is sacrilege.
Just sayin’.
Outstanding review, Ralph!
Nice wit, nice style. Great supporting detail.
I’m not normally moved to go to movie theaters anymore because of lack of quality, but you’ve inspired me about this one.
I’m not a movie goer either, but for a different reason. Movie theaters, along with airliner cabins are a great place to catch other folks germs.
I enjoy the movie more in my recliner, with premium sound, big screen, with a Blue Ray DVD, without some kid sitting next to me chomping on popcorn, or spilling a drink.
And of course there the 6′ 3″ tall lady with the high hair, that should be sitting in the last row.
Yeah, and I like being able to (1) turn on subtitles to figure out what the heck someone just said and (2) being able to pause for bathroom breaks. I can wait for the DVD.
Ralph, if you’re there: Do the Germans fight as stupidly in this film as they did in the climactic battle scene in “Ryan” (e.g. sending an open-topped tank destroyer against infantry without any infantry support of it’s own)?
Yes, in a manner of speaking. The assault on Fury (the tank) is not what I would expect of the always well-trained Waffen SS. But keep in mind that Fury (the movie) is set in the last month of hostilities, when the Waffen SS had suffered catastrophic losses, was not well led and the replacements had received little training. So, yes, the fighting was stupid based on 1941 standards, but not unrealistic for the end of the War.
Aha–Thanks, unlikely I wwwwwwwwiiilllll see it til the clips make it to youtube (haven’t gone to a theater in decades). Just like with Ryan… ;-). Kind of one of my pet peeves, shongthe eney as stpid just so the good uys can win) Intermittent keyboard has returned…
My intermittent keyboard never leaves, but only on this site. Otherwise (I saw the flick yesterday) I could not figure why the tank crew did not engage the enemy at the end at 500+ yards, with the .50 and 76mm, rather than waiting until the enemy opened the top hatch.
Loved the flick, overall.
Fake not Fury! The sniper scene was stupid, fake and sooo cheesey with the super slow bolt action and it looked lile Pitt had been hit by paintballs or BB’s not real bullets! Furthermore he would have easily done a headshot from that distance. Why do American films make such fake gun scenes its like the US has never shot guns or understand balistics. I’m from the UK and i shoot .308, .223, .22LR, .44 even with our strict laws and the thought of being on the recieving end of anything like that is un thinkable. I don’t know why Americans put up with it.
SPOILER….
unfortunately, yes. There is shot after shot of “group of Germans runs right into MG fire,” and in addition, when the SS batallion is seen first marching towards the tank, you can see numerous soldiers carrying Panzerfaust launchers, loaded and ready to go. Then they engage in hours of fighting with the tank, where no rockets are ever launched at the tank, before some German finally opens up a crate of launchers, and says “this is all we have.” what???
The movie blows. The word that kept coming to mind as i watched it was “ham-fisted”.
At least you and the movie have that in common.
I’ve never been to war, but I suspect that the reason many veterans of the War never speak of it is that the real thing is pretty hamfisted too. I understand that my father in law, who was deployed with the Rainbow Brigade right after the Battle of the Bulge, found Saving Private Ryan pretty difficult to watch. Too many memories.
This film is poorly written. A prime example would be that on multiple occasions things would start getting pretty intense, then they all take a break for a stupid one liner.
The dialogue was torturous throughout. It’s closer to The Delta Force than Band of Brothers…It is Expendables:1944
My uncle was on Okinawa and said everyone should see Private Ryan so they would stop thinking John Wayne had won the war.
Good review, I’ll have to watch this one.
Private Ryan was good in a limited way. I did not appreciate the homoeroticism and the way the wussy interpreter was perceived as the typical everyday soldier. I suspect that I will like this movie in a limited way too. I don’t like that soldiers are depicted as rapists. I’m sure it happened, but I don’t think I like it being shown as common. I’ll have to see how the movie presents it.
Would be kind of a concern for me too. What about it, Ralph?
Moral ambiguity abounds in war movies that are based on actual war, and not some Hollywood dreamwriter’s idea of what war should be.
In Fury, most of the sex is bought and paid for, with chocolate, cigarettes or other stuff that the civilians couldn’t get. Don’t laugh about chocolate. It wasn’t just a tasty snack. It might have been the only food that a civilian might eat for days.
The one scene in Fury that has been identified as rape is actually two young and frightened people in the middle of a horrible war taking some comfort from each other.
I did not find that scene offensive. In fact, I did not find it rape. Also, Wardaddy brings them six real eggs. Actual protein. The German women probably hadn’t seen eggs in years. When a GI had eggs, he could trade for anything or anyone he wanted.
American soldiers did commit acts of rape during WW2. That’s a fact. It’s estimated that 3.500 French women were raped by American forces after the liberation. There were many trials because Ike ordered them.
Still, the women of France fared better under US occupation than under German occupation. Oddly enough, German women during the Allied occupation were more protected by Supreme Headquarters than were French women.
Now, if this movie was centered on the Eastern Front . . . well, as many as two million German women were raped by the advancing Russians. Rape was unofficial Soviet policy. Revenge is a bitch.
Ralph-I saw the movie and I concur.
Rape used to be the policy of conquering armies, as in screw-you we beat you now be useful and raise OUR offspring.
You can consider the inverse, if your side loses no one comes home to breed your next fighters (aka France, you let your foreign legion get run-down).
Now rape is usually confined to the criminally insane, aka the U.N.
Thanks again Ralph. Sounds reasonable to me. Re the Eastern front biz neveerr mindd page gone to hell again
Good comment on the rapes, Ralph, but that murder of that German POW was a bit far fetched, I thought. An execution in front of so many troops would have likely been reported, even in WWII. Sure, it did happen, but that blatant a killing in from of so many witnesses would be a rare thing, methinks.
Mary Louise Roberts wrote a book about this. I think it was called “What GIs do.” American GIs had been instilled a bit with the idea that french women(in particular) were “loose,” even though culturally at the time they were not. When all that tension builds up after being deployed for a long time…. Well, “No” didn’t mean no when it was spoken in a different language I guess. Point is, I won’t say every GI did it, but it was something that happened that, as with many horrors of war, gets swept under the rug.
I saw it and loved it. It’s a really good film.
I hope the author realizes that T-levels have little to no correlation on how feminine a male acts. Andropause is no joke and it doesn’t change how masculine or feminine a guy acts.
T irrevocably sets many brain subsystem response patterns during the first twenty-four years of life.
Andropause doesn’t change behavior. It changes performance.
Trust me, I know. I was diagnosed with Andropause when I was only 33. Doctor wondered how I got out of bed in the morning.
The author of what? Who mentioned T-levels, and WTF are they? Are you on drugs? What is this post supposed to mean? Andropause? Is there a cross dimensional wizard correlation with foreign demons? What is this all about?
Thatta boy Larry. I thought I had drifted into another universe for a minute. WTF?
Thanks for the review, and the specs, and the rating, and even the spoilers. Nice job. : )
Pitt, who has a tendency to underact everything, manages to stop trying to channel his inner Gregory Peck just this once.
Maybe he ran out of acting after _12 Monkeys_.
Its all about the gun…88mm high velocity vs. 75/76mm medium velocity.
It’s all about the industrial infrastructure.. That Tiger might take out 6 Shermans or T-38s before it gets hit, but the Americans are sending 10 Shermans and the commies are sending 15 T-38s.
In any event, had that not happened, the Americans at least had figured things out, and a lot more of these would have rolled out..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M36_tank_destroyer
+1 a dozen times over. In book after book, article after article, the key phrase is “the industrial might of the United States”…
Great point.
On a tank for tank basis the Panther and two Tigers were superior to anything the Allies fielded in terms of the total package – crew survival, powerful guns, good armor, etc. But that came with a cost – too many parts, too few made. There were some 1300 Tiger 1s made and less than 500 Tiger 2s – versus 40,000 plus T-34s (the 76 and 85 MM gun versions) and 40,000 plus Shermans. If I correctly recall, some 6000 Panthers were made. The dumbest thing the Germans did was two-fold:
1) Never really ramped up to a total war production level. Having said that, December 1944 was the greatest single month for tank production despite Allied heavy bombing.
2) They kept on making the later version of the PzKW IV with the long 75MM gun. While this tank could kill anything the Allies had, its design and armor protection were out of date. The 75MM gun of this tank was not quite as good as that of the Panther. This tank should have been phased out and fully replaced by Panthers.
Amatuers talk tactics, professionals talk logistics.
I really liked the movie,I just thought it could have been done better if it focused on the fighting, and didn’t include a young hausfra falling in love with her rapist immediately after the act. I was walking out of the theater with my GF and we were commenting on that scene. Just seemed like it didn’t really fit into the movie. It got 2 points for being mostly correct with regards to the weapons. The STG44 was just cool.. My only real weapon gripe was that the end of the movie showed the german sniper with what looked liked the front sight post and front end of a GEW43, but was bolt action. Anyone else catch that?
I was too focused on the gaping plot hole that would have had that sniper doing what he was doing in the first place to notice anything about his rifle.
+1,000.
Yeah, I loved the movie, but the sniper was BS.
The sniper was there to make the killing more personal.
One question that bothers me; as they plan the defense of the cross roads, how did they miss the importance of moving all the .30cal ammo into the tank before the SS arrives?
I’m not sure we saw the same scene. What I thought was going to be an ugly scene really wasn’t. As soon as Norman started playing what was apparently one of her favorite songs on the piano, she had the hots for him. Her reactions towards him afterwards were nothing like a rape victim, but a young and naive girl who just received her first bit of kind treatment from a young soldier, probably for the first time in years – and one who she also found attractive.
Granted, they did storm into their apartment and demand a meal and bathing water, but it could’ve gone a whole different direction.
Excellent movie, none of usual Hollywood BS
Great review, Ralph. I’ve been looking forward to this movie for a long time!
My non-gun hobby is collecting German and Austrian militaria from 1914 to the present. As a result I often pick out the technical goofs for both armies; from minor discrepancies like anachronistic equipment to embarrassing affronts to historical accuracy like a film, the title of which escapes me, in which all the WWII German troops were issued H&K G3s. Don’t even get me started on mocked up T-34s driving in reverse with the turrets turned around to better look like Panzer IV’s.
I truly enjoyed “Fury” because the uniforms, weapons, etc were spot on along with the muddy, miserable environment. Sometimes I recognized exactly which archival photos the technical department was inspired by for some shots. The roughed up, blond-haired SS tanker Bradd Pitt taunts early in the film was undoubtedly based off a real photo of a young member of 12th SS division who’d just been beaten to a pulp by Canadian army interrogators near the village of Caen.The resemblance was just too close for coincidence. The human bipod (final battle, front end of an Mg42 held over the right shoulder by gunner’s assistant) was in fact a widely practiced German tactic with all sorts of light machine guns. Like I said, these are trivial details the average viewer won’t pick up, but I tip my hat to the technical advisors, they had super nit-picky nerds like myself in mind.
Yeah some of the tactics were dumbed-down or drawn out for plot advancement purposes and, while absolutely true to history some of the bits of up close graphic violence felt just a bit too planted to me, like they borrowed from Quentin Tarantino’s almost cartoony brand of deaths. In the end these were non-issues because let’s face it, Hollywood has released FAR worse tripe and labeled it “realistic”. I enjoyed the film, and of course, Ralph’s review was an entertaining read as always.
http://www.yourepeat.com/watch/?v=kKZfsPMfpo0
Milsurp, I found this trying to figure out what marching song the Waffen SS were singing…
the movie got a lot of this look, spot on.
The song is SS Marschiert. Chilling to hear them singing it as they marched to war and to death. SS Battalions actually used to do this. It’s not about victory or being tactical, they are marching to war with a fierce song in their hearts. Til Valhalla, would be a good way to see it.
You mention you’re into German/Austria uniforms, but can you tell me what gloves the US Tank Crew are wearing? The closest I can guess is they’re paratrooper gloves…
Ok…Was it just me or did this movie just suck? I really wanted to like it and was excited about going but between the point blank tank battle to the sniper creeping within 50 feet of the tank to take his shot, the movie just sucked. Now I will give credit to the costume dept. They did their research there and uniforms were spot on. But there was ZERO plot at least zero plot that made rational sense. Overall it was just a slow long movie that really got nowhere. Bring back a realistic movie like Ryan or The Longest Day.
I felt like the movie portrayed the Americans as evil invaders that will shoot the poor SS guy who surrendered in the back while others stood by and laughed. And then later the SS soldier sees the American under the tank and shows mercy to the American tanker after killing 200+ of his comrades. And one of my biggest gripes about the movie….when you are getting ready for a “final” battle don’t leave half your belted ammo outside of the tank.
I will not watch it again…I know I am in the minority here but really did not like it.
Well, I was not there, cant tell you what actually happened. I was irritated by the leaving of ammo outside the tank, but I have also been offered the opportunity to climb down into such a tank, and declined. More shit inside is not a welcome plan, although I agree that, facing a final battle I would have all inside, and all outside expended (shoot the suckahs with the .50 until it was empty before they close). Hell, I had the opportunity to climb into the airplane that I FLEW in Vietnam for a year, and it was too tight for me.
OTOH, what makes you think the sniper was within 50 feet? The scope image offered looked like a 30X vision of 50 feet, but that would be 1500 feet, right?
In regards to the sniper. He was not in the cover of darkness but lit up by the burning building which was next to the tank. I’m not saying the movie is horrible it was just not good…I guess my expectations were just way to high.
After the Malmedy massacre, the US Army soldiers hated the SS with a burning passion and many SS officers were executed on the spot if they were captured or caught by GIs. I don’t blame them. I would have done the same. Joyfully.
This movie is set after Malmedy. if you don’t know about Malmedy, here’s a link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre
In the fighting in and around the beacheads at Normandy some canadians were captured by the SS. When the allies finally overran the area Canadian prisoners of the SS were found bound and murdered. After that any SS unit that encountered Canadians was simply massacred.
The SS raped, murdered and pillaged all across europe. They got their just rewards at the hands of soldiers from all nations.
I enjoyed every bit of the movie except for any scene involving infantry. Whoever was their advisor for infantry tactics was either retarded, or got overridden a whole lot by the producers.
And a lot of those extras were really fat to have spent the last year fighting through Europe.
I agree with you 100 percent. Horrible anti American movie. After reading these reviews I gather they know a lot about guns- but little about purpose of second amendment if they were ok with how this movie portrayed Americans vs the Nazis. Grrrrrr
My only problem with the story was Norman, acting like a 1967 high school boy, this was 1945. But I didn’t mind too much. The movie reminded me of Das Boot, more than Saving Private Ryan.
YES – Das Boot. But Fury will be ranked among the very best war movies of all time.
Great review Ralph. I usually refuse to read reviews because I refuse to learn the technical aspects of film making, no offense to anyone else, I just want to preserve the childs wonder of being immersed in the experience, and I know I will lose that if I start intellectualizing it.
Besides, the arty types never get it right anyway, on what makes a movie work, at least for me.
But after reading TTAG now for awhile I found myself picking out weapons details, the carbines, tommyguns, and wondering about the tank machine guns. The technical feel of the battle scenes seemed very realistic, too, so thanks for the details, Ralph, and milsurp.
I just saw this at one of the last old school movie theaters with a huge screen in an auditorium sized house, and I’d highly recommend same as anything smaller doesn’t do the cinematography justice, and the on field action in particular.
I found it very realistic, and while there were a couple scenes that seemed forced, most of it worked, and I got that puckering feeling and could imagine the terror of the youngest member of the tank crew, seeing the battle hardened veterans of that advancing Waaffen SS force marching briskly singing a song, with anti-tank weapons slung over shoulders…
Better than Private Ryan in some wys, less satisfying in others, almost cartoonish in a couple places, but a huge win, for Pitt, La Boeuf and other main characters, I think. A great flick overall.
They left room for a prequil but the crew is too old when the roll it. They are too old now. 50 yr old tank crews? In wwii the old man was 25.
I loved this movie, I wasn’t expecting much more than a decent movie finally featuring tanks the way the should be. In my opinion, I think the acting ability of the crew was stellar, all of them contributed well with just a few moments that could be criticized. I don’t think the same could be said about Miller’s squad in Saving Private Ryan. I think Fury handled gore and other scenes very well. The shocking sequences didn’t linger for shock value but still resonated with heaviness need to get the point across. Also I didn’t think any of it felt cheap. I think some of the violence in Saving Private Ryan just wasn’t as authentic and was just put in for hollow shock value
As for ‘War is Hell’, this movie has it in spades and does it better than The Thin Red Line’s narration. I would say that if the tank fights weren’t as good as they were, this film would be way too heavy to really enjoy. The only part of the film that didn’t seem up to the same caliber as the rest of the film was the Crossroads. It was pretty epic but just didn’t seem to fit with the rest of the film. Still the movie is worth the price of admission and if you want to see some seriously tense battles with tanks, look no further. The Tiger battle was sublime and there was so much tension, it draws you in.
Maybe those wacky Brits and their Firefly (which the Yanks flat refused to take) weren’t so crazy after all. That high velocity 76mm could engage German tanks out to 1000m.
The wacky brits didn’t want the 17 pounder in their shermans either. Early on the 2 officers that had begun work on putting the overlarge gun into a sherman turret were told to stop the project and concentrate on other, higher priority projects. They basically ignored the order and continued the project.
When the top brass suddenly discovered they needed the 17 pdr after all in the sherman it was ready to go. Saved months of delay and saved who knows how many brits.
The one picture I see of the 1917 revolver looks like a S&W.
I have a friend whose Step Father commanded an M18 Hellcat in the Schnee Eiffel and the Ardennes. Fury is actually very realistic. The battles were a real mess. One guy got hit by a German tank shell and he blew up all over the tank platoon. Burnt out tanks and bodies were piling up around his dug in position in the Eiffel, just like in Fury. The M18’s 76mm with HVAP could really light up the STUG III and IVs of which he was predominately fighting. Eventually his unit was overrun and they blew up the tank destroyers and set them on fire. He could speak German as his parents were from Germany. He could listen and talk to the German Commanders and troops on the radio. He got his men out of the area now overrun by the Waffen SS through drainage ditches. The German women were desperate for food and they could easily be bought although some rapes did occur by a Jewish member of the crew. Most of the time, the American Soldiers and German Civilians tried to be civil to one another. My father in law who was a machine gunner would just tie up the Waffen SS and machine gun them down as in the Fury movie. Casualty rates were usually high for combat units.
The battle tactics used against the Tiger were not appropriate for an up-gunned M4 but entirely appropriate for the weaker 75mm version. HVAP was scarce and he M18 crews had first priority. M4A3E8 crews were second or third in line. No HVAP, no penetration from the front.
Haven’t seen the movie yet, but Belton Cooper, author of “Death Traps” said the 76mm “easy eight” main gun would not penetrate the frontal armor of either the Panther or Tiger tanks. The only allied tank gun capable of meeting the Panther or Tiger on anything approaching equal terms was the 17 pounder gun fitted to some British “Firefly” modified Sherman tanks. Cooper commented that even the 90mm main gun of the M26 Pershing heavy tank which entered late in the war wouldn’t penetrate the frontal armor of Panthers or Tigers at comparable combat ranges. The Brits offered the 17 pounder to the US but Army Ordinance turned it down in favor of the 76mm. Big mistake.
At about 2.50 in this video is a real-time film showing a Sherman getting knocked out by a Panther, followed by an M26 (probably one talked about by Cooper in his book) engaging and destroying the Panther. Not for the faint of heart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFG2i4y3kXs
Britain couldn’t build 17 pounders fast enough. We may have offered the US a license to produce them, but they might have declined given the 90mm was well on it’s way to production, or some other ‘Political’ reason.
The Soviets in 1944 added a fine 85MM gun to their T-34s because of the Tigers which gave them good firepower that could hole them in the flanks easily enough and maybe the front of the Tiger 1s. The Tiger 2 had thicker and sloped armor that could stop them however.
The Stalin series of tanks that came out in late 1944 had 122MM guns that could hole anything the Germans had as could the assault guns with the massive 152MM guns. Soviets and subtlety are mutually exclusive terms. Osprey has a fine series of books on tanks of one side versus tanks of another and they have one on the Tiger 2 versus the JS-2 tanks. The Stalins carried fewer shells than Tigers did and they had two piece ammunition which the Germans did not. Thus, the Soviets could not stay in action as long and had a slower rate of fire. Modern Soviet tanks still use two piece ammo – our Abrams tanks do not.
Our 90MM gun Pershings that deployed in March 1945 could punch holes in Tigers as well even though its muzzle velocity was still lower than the German 88MM guns.
Dad got to play with an M36 for training and the 90mm did very well against a Tiger hulk in a demonstration firing.
“which on the manly name scale is one step up from Bruce.”
Hold on there a minute! How’d YOU like to be stuck with this name all your life, only to be once again ridiculed unmercifully at this late date? I didn’t pick that moniker. Namist!
On the other hand there are numerous ladies spread across this land that equate the name Bruce with the standard of manliness and virility. Kinda like a boy named Sue, “I knew you’d have to fight or die.” He named me Bruce cause “I knew you’d have to **** or die.”
All my life, I’ve wished that my parents had named me Vinny, Butch or Duke. But noooooo. Instead, they named the dog “Butch.”
At least they didn’t name him Indiana.
G’Day!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA
Is the action as carnage-rific as the most recent Rambo installment? Cuz that was pretty raw in the last sequences of the movie.
I like that they made the tank look like an overloaded winnebago. Even today they have a lot to carry about, and few places to keep it. Also the dirt, no handy washracks about to knock the mud off. There’s always mud.
My understanding is that the Sherman was never really intended to fight the German tanks like the Tiger. They had a tank destroyer that was for that. The Sherman mainly was to provide support for the infantry.
Hey, brosef, you forgot to mention that Hanks didnt speak German, whereas Pitt’s character is a German-speaking, Sturmgewere-rockin’ TC.
I also found Don’s choice of personal weapons interesting. A custom revolver and a captured StG.
Shia LaBeouf had the crazy eyes down to a science in this movie
Saw the film tonight and really enjoyed it. This was the best depiction of armor combat in World War 2 that has been put on film save period newsreels.
Using Tiger 131 from Bovington really added to the film and the terror to the Sherman crews when fighting it. That Tiger was taken in North Africa and if you look at the films of it on Youtube you will see it not only running but still with the air cleaners on the rear that were attached to deal with dust getting into the engine filters. They removed them for the “Fury” movie. This was an earlier model Tiger 1 – most of those still in use in 1945 had the steel wheels and not the concave rubber enhanced wheels. Too bad that the Tiger 2 in the French museum in Saumur could not have been used as well – it runs too.
I counted four types of Shemans in the film film the older cast hulled low velocity 75 guns to the two with 76 MM guns; one an older chassis and lacking the muzzle brake and then “Fury”, an “Easy Eight” variant with the 76 MM gum and muzzle brake and wider tracks with improved suspension. These too came from Bovington I have read.
In the early scene in the film where “Fury” survived the tank battle you can see Panzer IV hulks and one Panther hulk as well. The late war Hanomag half tracks were on target for the time frame too.
Very good film – very violent as war is.
I have to admit, this movie has the sweetest and most innocent rape scenes ever. Since Pitt is involved, and since he’s married to a Special Envoy and former Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there must be something good about these rape scenes.
Haven’t seen it yet but loved the review and comments will help me be more aware…
Had an uncle that was a Tanker in WWII, Korea AND Vietnam! His stories were epic!
Keep in mind that the US needed a tank that was easy to produce and small enough to transport great distances. The Russians had Shermans for instance, though few in number.
Late in the war the beating the Germans was no cake walk. They were on their own soil and the ones with experience, few that there were, fought hard until the end.
The average ‘life’ of a Thunderbolt Pilot was less than 3 weeks during those last months.
Keep in mind that the British had held in Indochina and stopped the Germans from obtaining rubber. This is how the first imitation rubber was produced but it was brittle and failed at odd times. The tanks and aircraft all had fuel lines made from this and many a German soldier burnt to death because of fuel leaks.
As a side note prewar…..an American inventor came up with a design for tank ‘road wheels,’ but the design was turned down by the US Military…..so he sold the patent to the Russians….look again at the ‘T’ series of Russian tanks and realize an American invented invented their road wheel design!
Anyway….I’ll wait until the film is available on Bluray but will definitely add it to my collection….
The Germans also lost some important mines which produced an element that was added to their steel armor for tanks (I forget offhand which element that was). Lacking this, mid-1944 and on tank armor became brittle and tended to crack when it was hit, I have pictures of some of these tanks and assault guns that were made with this brittle armor and the cracks are more than apparent.
Germany also had the largest coal reserves in Europe and they had developed the formula in 1935 to turn that into gasoline. They built large refineries for that and it powered their war machine for the entire war. They also had Romanian oil and the little captured in the Caucasus in Russia (for a short time).
German tanks had built in defects as well since they were made by slave labor. Sabotage was very high and with far more parts than American and Russian tanks, it was easy to do. They became a constant maintenance nightmare for German mechanics. Tigers were especially prone to this.
It was Christie that developed the design for the road wheels and chassis that the US turned down that the Soviets used for their T series of tanks. They had a draw back however as they were small inside and Soviet tankers could not be over 5 feet 10 inches or they would not fit into the hulls.
Tominator, I was fortunate enough to have served in the military at a time when guys that had served in ww2, and korea were still on active duty. I always listened and tried to learn when those guys spoke.
I lol’d when I got to the “caliber” of the movie. 🙂
Great review. Very well written.
Wonder where “Shia” fits on the “manly name scale”?
As a rule, I don’t often go to movie theaters…most movies over the past10 years haven’t impressed me enough to warrant spending $$$ on them. When I saw the promo’s for Fury, I thought that this one might be good. Last time I went to a movie was with my best bud since Jr High. That film wsa Private Ryan. As it happened, I was out visiting this same friend and we saw Fury together.
The uniforms, equipment and weaponry all seemed spot on. As a retired Tanker, I was very impressed with crew inter-action, resupply and combat actions. That was all as I remember. Overall, I would say Fury is worth the $$$ and worth viewing.
There was a lot to take in, seeing it only once. THe plot and story line might have been weak here and there, but that was minor. There were a few things I thought were not tactically correct –
#1 Four Shermans would NOT have taken on a Tiger in a frontal assault. After firing the smoke rounds, they would have attempted to flank the Tiger from the git-go.
#2 If you’re going to make a last stand from inside the tank, would you not bring in the spare .30 Cal machinegun and all the ammo you had for it?
#3 When the four tanks were moving in column, down the road, the lead tank turret would be facing forward, the rear tank turret facing rearward and the others would alternate their turret orientation to the left and right, tracking and looking for the enemy.
So, other than that, Fury was definitely more accurate than 95% of Hollywood combat films…
Bill,
The four Shermans would also have been killed starting about 1000 meters out thanks to the superiority of the 88MM gun of the Tiger. The camera lense has limitations too so the Shermans were bunched closer than they would have been in a real situation. Once the first Sherman was hit the rest would have floored it and broken apart to try for the Tiger’s flanks – and the film shows them being told to break right and left for such a maneuver.
The .30 caliber thing outside of the tank was indeed weird as was the scene of the SS men marching with Panzerfausts over their shoulders and then the scene where the crates of them were opened and the officer saying that these were the few that were left.
Sometimes continuity in films gets overlooked.
Still a really fine film that shows relationships in tank crews and how they fought their tank.
I just saw the movie. It was a thriller, however, (can be spoiler) in the end the Germans throw 2 grenades in the tank and they really have a slow fuse so Norman has time to exit. . But, after they go off, Brad’s head is still on and his face doesn’t look like 2 grenades went off a few feet away. That and I noticed a pack of Lucky Strike cigarettes just lying there not suffering any effects from the grenades. Finally, one of those panserfausts (RPG forerunner) that the soldiers were carrying in the march to the crossroads would have easily taken out the tank.
Saw the film yesterday and enjoyed it, but a few things seemed implausible:
1) Dug in antitank guns fail to knock out even one of the 3 Shermans that are out in the open in a field?
2)
Fury has a much more impressive cast of Jewish actors (Logan Lerman, Jon Bernthal, Shia LaBeouf, Jason Isaacs) playing WWII soldiers than Pitt’s Inglourious Basterds did.
I have been trying to find someone to go see this with me to no avail……soI went alone tonight to the 10:20pm showing (made the decision at 9:30pm)….,it was me and one other dude in the theater!!! Of course, the late showing on a week night is not the busiest time. I too DESPISE going to the theater. I have not been for ME since SPR (sat through many Pixar films with my sons-too young for Fury). The realism of the weapons, the uniforms, the tanks (the real Tiger was a fantastic surprise!!). Of course, we must remember thatnevery movie is made to a lowest common denominator. Sure, the plot is somewhat suspect and predictable……but I felt it one of the top. 5 WWII movies of all time (especially in the last 20 years….short of SPR). I hope one of these actors wins an Oscar…..I always thought of Pitt as a pretty boy with passable acting skills.mhe is EXCELLENT in this role…..as is SLB…..and the actor whom played Norman ( too lazy to look up names as it is 2 am). It is so refreshing to see a realistic WW II film based around the armoured warfare aspect of the war. I have been inside a early Sherman and could not picture “living” and fighting in the thing. I feel I have a much better understanding now and all I can say is THANK YOU to the soldiers of all the allied nations regardless of what branch or weapons (tanks, fighters, bombers, subs, carriers, destroyers, etc.) used. The world owes an unending gratitude to all who served whether they survived or suffered the ultimate sacrifice. Thank you to all veterns……but that generation….the greatest….there will never be another like them!!!
I found it interesting that Pitt was using an Stg44 (New, state-of-the-art), while his preferred sidearm was an M1917 (Old, reused, phased out). It seems to me that his two weapon choices kind of contradict each other 🙂
Steve,
I hear what you are saying…makes perfect sense. But let’s remember I.B. Was not Pitt’s movie…..it was Quentin’s. Revisionist history of the highest order…..but I thought highly entertaining with possibly the best villain ever to see film…..given his personality, charm, and that fact that he was a total sociopath!! If an Oscar was ever deserved….it was there. I always go back to Marissa Torme’ winning for “My Cousin Vinny”……,she was just fine….but she essentionally played herself!!! Most certainly a “Milly Vanilli Grammy Moment” if there ever was one!!
John Doe,
I can certainly see why Pitt’s character would have liberated a Stg44…..the worlds first true assault rifle. But, I can also see where he would have carried the M1917…..talk about stopping power!! Sure, the 1911 carries more rounds but if you a tanker (especiall in a Sherman for God’s robes))and you get to the point of needing your side arm….odds are pretty good those extra rounds are not really going to matter!! Plus, we do not know the back story of the gun for the charatcer….could have been carried by Dad in WWI or whatever. A great many US GI’s indeed carried the M1917 in WW II and for one BIG reason…..notice how every German who took a round from that handgun turned into a fine red mist…..from everything I have read regarding that particular firearm and the ammo…..totally accurate display in Fury!!
John (and everyone),
Sorry about the typos!! Before you all go busting on me…..my iPad “locked” and I could not edit….time ran out on me. So please forgive the typos (“for God’s sake”…..I have ZERO idea where “for God’s robes” came from!!! Got to LOVE Autocorrect!!
Just trying to stop the firestorm before the backlash begins.
Thanks Guys…..enjoy the banter and learning from you all!!
Thanks!!!
John,
You know, in thinking further on your comment, there certainly could be a direct correlation between his use of the two weapons and the contradiction of the character himself. Tough and rugged as all hell (executing the SS man in front of EVERYONE) and the kindness he shows to the two woman (and maybe I am blind…..but I saw no “rape” scene in that film) and his love for his crew telling them to hit the tree line while he scarifices himself for them at the .50. I am a history nut…..not a movie buff, but I can see (perhaps overthinking it WAY TOO MUCH) the contradiction in his personal weapons as a remark on the character in general.
But, I am probably full of crap!!
Have a great day guys!!
Thanks!!!
You comment on the accuracy of the weapons used in the movie. Clearly, the machine gun or assault rifle that Brad Pitt uses does not fit in. Having just sat through the movie, it looks superficially like an AK-47, but could not be, for many reasons, including the fact that Kalashnikov did not design it until 1946. It might be a Sturmgewehr 44, but where would “Wardaddy” get it (off a dead German soldier?), and more importantly, where would he continue to get the ammunition for it? Seems an odd “aside” for an otherwise visually satisfying WWII movie.
It was indeed an STG-44. It came into wide spread use in the German Army, in particular the new Volksgrenadier divisions raised in 1944, by German infantry of both the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS. So finding one was easy enough as was keeping it supplied with ammo – just get more off of dead Germans.
Soldiers as far back as the Civil War took weapons from dead foes if they were better than what they had been issued all the time. Confederate cavalry loved capturing Spencer rifles and carbines in 1863-1864 and even capturing supply wagons loaded with the ammo for them. These seven shot repeaters were the best of their types in the war and gave them greater firepower than their muskets and carbines. So capturing the STG 44 was something worth getting in WW2 for similar reasons.
And I do not care what Mr. Kalashnikov stated, his AK-47 was copied from the STG-44. The Soviets copied everything they could get their hands on that was worth copying including our B-29 bomber (thanks to some that had landed in Russia after flying over Japan. They returned the crews but kept the planes and reverse engineered them.)
By the way – with regards to the scene where Fury and its crew defended that crossroads against hordes of German troops is based on a similar event in WW2.
In November 1944, 3rd Armored Division was part of the attack on the German West Wall (Siegfried Line) and one tank did just that. It too lacked infantry support and it was manned by a single crewman. He shot off all of his HE main guns rounds, then all of the .30 cal from inside the tank and then shot off all of the .50 cal from the gun on the turret. He had a Thompson submachine gun and show all of that ammo off as well as his box of grenades. He survived the action. The account of this can be found in the book “Death Traps” about a tank recovery officer of the 3rd Armored Division and a fine book if you have an interest in US armor battles.
3rd Armored got chopped up pretty badly at Paderborn, Germany in 1945 which was the home of their armor training school. Seven King Tiger tanks took out a big column of US tanks and vehicles losing only three of their number.
It is a american ego war film … made to boost the america image in world war II… the screen whereby 4 sherman vs 1 tiger is a joke ….tiger would be commanded by experience commander .. and an experince commander wont advance its tank knowing it can safely knock out sherman tank in a distance without being risk of penetration ….the camo anti tank screen is another joke …. most of the time the line in waiting camo anti tank can hit and penetrate the paper made amour of sherman yet the screen which not just 1 but 2 anti tank too serval shoot yet most shoot miss and the rest just ricochet off its target … the anti tank profile is very low and hard for sherman to hit it .. yet the us sherman seem had no trouble hitting it …. the 1 tank vs 300 SS troop is yet another 300 spartan vs 100 thousand persian … the tank had only fire 2 machine gun which one of it only shoot frontally 180 degree at most but seems can shoot 360 degree everywhere … there is a limit and buffer time for both machine gun and main gun … it doesnt make sense to a late war SS troop that dont know how to effectively flank a immobile tank and use its hand held anti tank weapon… do you need to wait till last resort to use anti tank in a enmass attack ? Totally senseless …
P.s it just a pro american war film same as their saving pruvate ryan earlier
Sorry, but I don’t understand how anyone can call this a good movie. It was garbage. The American soldiers were depicted as rapists and thugs. I’m sure there were some bad American soldiers and atrocities happen in every war, but this movie defames American soldiers and makes them look horrible, while depicting an SS soldier in a better light. The movie dragged on and there was absolutely no character development. Even the musical score was horrendous.
Comparing this to other great WWII movies like Saving Private Ryan, or Band of Brothers, is ridiculous. I could go on and on about how bad this movie is, but see it for yourself and try to look past the the historical accuracy of the tanks and guns to see how bad this movie really is.
american soldiers did all of those things do some research
american soldiers did all of those things do some research
A question for the uniform/costume-detailed people: what gloves did the tank crew wear? The nearest I can find is those are paratrooper gloves. Am I correct in this assumption?
First, Ill say I really enjoyed the movie and thought it a real “edge of your seat” experience. That being said, I can’t help but notice a few innacuracies. As an infantryman, one thing that was off to me was the way the extras play the armored infantry in the film. It kind of looked like they dressed a bunch of random guys up and gave them weapons without learning about who they were portraying. Maybe its just me, but it looked very fake or even cheesy. I guess I would compare it to a “bunch of high school guys making a short film for a senior project” acting job. I never noticed this in band of brothers or any of the other well known modern WWII films. I guess its not too important since the movie was focused on the tankers, but it could have been done better.
Also, in the scene where the tank platoon rescued the pinned down infantry in the field, the tracers looked more like star wars laser beams than normal rounds. They first engaged the enemy at what had to be 600 yrds or more, but none of the rounds arched at all and they seemed to be moving at a higher velocity than what they should. At that range, the 30-06 rounds from the m1919 should have had a very visible downward arch as they traveled downrange. From the gunners perspective the rounds will appear to slow down and droop a little after traveling 300-400 yds.
With this being said, I thought it was a great movie and you can’t but help feel the terror and emotions felt by the crewmen in the tanks. The gore was brutally realistic and makes you appreciate what these guys did even in the face of such destructive enemy weapons. When norman had to clean the tank of the remains of the dead assistant driver, It was quite evident the filmmakers read Cooper’s “death traps”. Having to remove dismembered body parts, especially half a persons face, was one of the ugly tasks the men had to do.
Anyway, if you haven’t seen it you ought to. Definitely one of the best WWII films of the past decade or two.
Just saw the movie and Ralph’s review (which I refrained from reading until now) was spot. Heavy material, war is hell, but I also appreciated the actors and what they tried to portray – real human beings stuck in an insane situation (war).
The tank battle scene with the Tiger had to be one of the most tense / nail biting WW2 battle scenes that I’ve seen depicted on film. That scene alone is worth the price of admission to the film.
It is a good movie, but unrealistic in certain aspects. The last scene? A load of waffen ss troops killed before they finally put a sherman out of commission? Uh uh. They would have trashed that sherman way before they had killed all those krauts. Why couldn’t they have made it a little more realistic? Disappointed in a solid movie.
The movie was rubbish. Who outnumbered who in World War II? The Allies only won because of the numbers. Man for man the German soldier was better. The SS were even more so. Funny how the SS were simply soldiers but were always portrayed as murderous yet it was the Americans who shot the German POW, and it was the German SS soldier who spared the American in the end. It was usually the German soldier who found himself fighting overwhelming numbers, and he still made his enemies pay a big price.
Any half trained group of 20 soldiers would have outflanked the tank and destroyed it. The “final” battle scene was ludicrous. the fact that the tank was immobile made it worse. The underdog basketball team wins the trophy, the ugly geek gets the babe, 4 guys in a disabled tank, in the dark I must add, fight off 100’s. Stupid.
Also fixed position anti-tank guns miss repeatedly (very stable firing platform), but tanks moving at speed over rough terrain, with un-stabilized guns, are dead on target. No doubt! Sherman losses ran over 500 percent.
Review John Wick please.
fucking stupid movie.. the funny thing is people dont even know what tank “fury” actually is its not just a sherman.. its called the sherman EZ8 or M4A3E8 (still a shitty tank) firefly and the jumbo were the only successful Sherman variant
.
Haha, if Fury was a man you’d suck his dick in a second!
Fury was a shit movie, and the ending battle was retarded.
New book on the M4 Sherman tank-
“For Want Of A Gun: The Sherman Tank Scandal of WWII”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99UaCetvfXw
https://www.amazon.com/Want-Gun-Sherman-Tank-Scandal/dp/0764352504
Comments are closed.